Mustang GT and K&N air charger

C. E. White wrote:
> "Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Ed White wrote:
>>> "Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>>> Oh come on, man. You know that the age of the web site does not
>>>>> indicate the age of the content. So again, I ask: Do you have any
>>>>> URLs for tests done with modern engines?
>>>> Do you have any? Feel free to make an effort. It's not my job to do
>>>> your homework to support your claims. I gave you my links now you give
>>>> me yours.
>>> Try
>>> http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/c...-406/index.htm
>>> or http://tinyurl.com/2erwzm . This is a reprint of a Consumer Report
>>> article. Here is the relevant portion -
>>>
>>> "IMPORTANT DRIVING TIPS THAT HAVE LITTLE EFFECT ON FUEL ECONOMY
>>> ....
>>>
>>> "Keep your air filter clean. According to our tests, driving with a dirty
>>> air filter in modern engines doesn't have a significant impact on fuel
>>> economy, as it did with older engines. While fuel economy didn't change,
>>> however, power output did. Both cars accelerated much more slowly with a
>>> dirty air cleaner. We drove both vehicles with their air cleaners
>>> restricted and found little difference in gas mileage with either engine.
>>> That's because modern engines use computers to precisely control the
>>> air/fuel ratio, depending on the amount of air coming in through the
>>> filter. Reducing airflow, therefore, caused the engines to automatically
>>> reduce the amount of fuel being used."
>> Notice the part where is states "driving with a dirty air filter in modern
>> engines doesn't have a significant impact on fuel economy"? This means it
>> did have an impact on fuel economy. What we don't know is their
>> definition of "a dirty air filter" and "a significant impact". Maybe what
>> they consider insignificant to them isn't insignificant to someone else.
>> They are actually confirming that a dirty air filter does impact gas
>> mileage. Had they used a filter with enough dirt in it then they would
>> have seen a substantial impact on mileage.
>
> GEEEEEEEEEZ - Nobody is claiming that sticking a potato in the intake won't
> screw things up. This whole discussion got started because you objected to
> my contention that a K&N air will not significantly improve the fuel economy
> of a modern fuel injected engine. We are talking about a difference in
> filter restriction of less than a tenth of a psi at wide open throttle. At a
> steady state cruise the difference is even less (probably hundredths of a
> psi). If you want to compared some hypothetical completely plugged filter to
> a filter replaced at reasonable intervals, then I won't claim there isn't a
> difference. But if we are just talking about filters operating in the normal
> range of contamination one would expect to see for a properly maintained
> engine, then the air filter is a not going to have a significant effect on
> fuel econonmy. And I stand by my statement that ther is no reason to expect
> a K&N air filter to provide a significant (= measurable) improvement in the
> fuel economy of a modern fuel injected engine [compared to a reasonably well
> maintained paper filter].

What we are talking about is if a dirty filter affects gas mileage. It
does. The degree to which it affects it depends on how much dirt is in
the filter. A more efficient engine requires the throttle to be open
less to make the same amount of power. If the throttle is opened less
then less gas is used and the doesn't have to be under a greater load to
perform its tasks.

Depending on the application, a K&N filter and/or intake system MAY
improve mileage by making the engine more efficient. It depends on how
efficient the stock intake system is it replaces. I would be willing to
bet a K&N would flow better than a stock paper filter if each one had
30k miles on them and that toward the end of an OEM filters life the
difference in gas mileage between them would be in the K&N's favor.

In your statement above you admit a dirty filter has an impact on
mileage. I never said the impact was significant across a filters
recommended life but only that it did occur to some degree. Maybe the
degree is less than what one would see on an engine with a carburetor
but it is still there.

C. E. White wrote:
> "Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> My guess is you have soil with a high sand content where no-till works
>> better. In other areas the soil is more compact and the plant's root
>> system has a much harder time propagating through the soil. In the
>> Midwest and here in Virginia it is very rare to see a no-till field.
>> Especially, on farms that require high production to be profitable. How
>> is your yield on the no-till compared to conventional till? I know the
>> cost to plant is supposed to lower but the rub is the yield is lower too.
>
> I have some fields that have decent sand content, but for the most part I
> farm heavy clay soils. My no-till soybeans have always done as well as
> conventional beans. I have never tried no till corn, but would be willing to
> try it if I had the equipment, The neighbor that no-tills cotton is getting
> far better yields that other farmers got when the field was in conventional
> tillage (it is a rented farm). It is very "tight" clay based soil. However,
> cotton will put down some strong roots. Peopel in the area were amazed at
> how will he did when he converted the farm to no till. I've only seen him
> screw up once in the the ten years or so he has been no-tilling that
> particualr farm One year he let the weeds get out of control in no-till
> soybeans. It was a sorry looking mess. But then it was a dry year and the
> chemicals to control the weeds were not effective. However, this is not
> specifically a no-till problem It could have happened to anyone with drilled
> beans. I don't see much feature to no-till peanuts, although people try
> that. I think no-till corn is a possibility. I don't think compaction is
> near the problem you think it is. Most farmer in my area don't actually
> "beak" the land like in the old days by using a turn plow or a chisel plow.
> Most of my neighbors just pull a disk arrow. This breaks up the top few
> inches of soil, but compacts the lower levels. This is likely worse than
> no-till as far as soil compaction is concerned.
>
>> When I was growing up in Indiana there were many full time farmers that
>> could make a living off of as little as a thousand tillable acres.
>> Nowadays someone farming 1,000 acres would barely scratch out a living
>> there. Farming became a corporate business a long time ago.
>
> When I was young, I attended a 4H convention (circa 1969). I remember
> another delegate standing up during a Q&A session and posing a question
> something like - "How could a small farmer working a thousand acres or less
> hope to survive?" At that time my Father was farming about 200 acres and was
> making a decent living. I farm around 350 acres (I rent some land, and rent
> some land out) and don't see any way to make a living doing it with
> conventional field crops (corn, peanuts, soybeans, cotton). Every year I
> consider just renting out my land, or turning it all into a big cow pasture
> (cows are relatively profitable at the moment). Sooner or later it will
> happen. I figure I am one big tractor repair bill away from retiring from
> farming. I'd really like a new tractor, but it is hard to spend a $100,000
> on one piece of equipment. I don't see myself farming long enough to pay it
> off unless commodity prices increase to a reasonable level. With corn at $3
> and soybeans at $10 I would consider upgrading equipment, but I doubt the
> moderate prices will last.

The small farmers around my home town have tractors still in use that
were manufactured in the early 1950s. One thing that really decimated
the family farms in the Midwest in the late 1970s and early 1980s was
when the banks urged the farmers with paid off land to leverage it to
buy more land at inflated prices. Then when the land prices fell the
very banks that talked them into the loans called them in because they
no longer had the collateral to cover them. It slaughtered thousands
upon thousands of family farms and really started the era of corporate
farming in earnest. I commend you for sticking it out this long. IMO,
farmers never do their jobs for the money. They do it for the love of
farming.

"Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
...

> What we are talking about is if a dirty filter affects gas mileage. It
> does. The degree to which it affects it depends on how much dirt is in
> the filter. A more efficient engine requires the throttle to be open less
> to make the same amount of power. If the throttle is opened less then
> less gas is used and the doesn't have to be under a greater load to
> perform its tasks.

Clearly you don't understand how modern fuel injection systems engines work.
One last time - The output of the engine is dependent on how much air can be
pulled into the cylinders. The amount of air drawn into the engine is
controlled by the total intake tract restriction (filter, piping, throttle
plate, valves opening, etc.). As long as you are not at wide open throttle,
to achieve a particular power output, an increase in the restriction of one
part of the system is compensated for by a change in the throttle position.
The total restriction is the same for a given power output at a given rpm.
The only sensor that is even slightly affected by minor changes in air
filter flow restriction is the throttle position sensor. As I have pointed
out repeatedly, this is just a gross position indicator. It is incapable of
providing the sort of precise data that would indicate the minor change in
the throttle position necessary to compensate for a slight difference in the
flow resistance related to the air filter. The rest of the sensors used to
control the amount of fuel injected will not be affected by reasonable
differences in air filter restrictions (I am not talking about a completely
plugged filter).

> Depending on the application, a K&N filter and/or intake system MAY
> improve mileage by making the engine more efficient.

How does it make the engine more efficient????????????????????????????? It
may allow the engine to pull in more air when the throttle is at wide open
throttle, but this does not mean the engine is more efficient. It just means
the engine can develop more power. And, if you take advantage of this extra
power, you may actually reduce your fuel economy.....

> It depends on how efficient the stock intake system is it replaces. I
> would be willing to bet a K&N would flow better than a stock paper filter
> if each one had 30k miles on them and that toward the end of an OEM
> filters life the difference in gas mileage between them would be in the
> K&N's favor.

I am willing to wager there would be no detectable difference. Unless you
are at wide open throttle, the amount of air needed to maintain a give power
output (or speed under a give set of conditions) is going to be the same. If
the K&N filter is less restrictive than the paper filter, it just means the
throttle plate will be slightly less open. The total intake tract resistance
will be the same.

> In your statement above you admit a dirty filter has an impact on mileage.

Which statement was that? Do you mean when I said - "But if we are just
talking about filters operating in the normal range of contamination one
would expect to see for a properly maintained engine, then the air filter is
a not going to have a significant effect on fuel economy. And I stand by my
statement that there is no reason to expect a K&N air filter to provide a
significant (= measurable) improvement in the fuel economy of a modern fuel
injected engine [compared to a reasonably well maintained paper filter]."

> I never said the impact was significant across a filters recommended life
> but only that it did occur to some degree. Maybe the degree is less than
> what one would see on an engine with a carburetor but it is still there.

Significant = measurable (in my mind). A dirty air filter on a carbureted
engine will have a measurable impact on fuel economy. However, even for a
carbureted engine it has to be really dirty. I never let one get dirty
enough to cause a problem, but I understand the sound reasons why a dirty
filter could affect a carbureted engine's fuel economy. For modern fuel
injected engines, there is no sound engineering reason to think that at air
filter that is changed at reasonable intervals will affect fuel economy. The
nature of the modern fuel injection systems eliminates the reasons why
filter contamination affects fuel economy. The difference in air flow
between a K&N and a paper filter is trivial in most cases. It is certainly a
non-factor in regards to fuel economy.

Ed

We may as well just agree to disagree.

C. E. White wrote:
> <snip>

Michael Johnson wrote:
> We may as well just agree to disagree.
>
> C. E. White wrote:
>> <snip>

*WELCOME TOOOO... CODGER-FEST... 2008!!!*

--
"Yah know I hate it when forces gather in ma' fringe..." - Sheogorath

"Daytime television sucked 20 years ago,
and it still sucks today!" - Marc Bissonette

WindsorFox wrote:
> Michael Johnson wrote:
>> We may as well just agree to disagree.
>>
>> C. E. White wrote:
>>> <snip>
>
> *WELCOME TOOOO... CODGER-FEST... 2008!!!*

Care to share with the class?

Michael Johnson wrote:
> WindsorFox wrote:
>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>> We may as well just agree to disagree.
>>>
>>> C. E. White wrote:
>>>> <snip>
>>
>> *WELCOME TOOOO... CODGER-FEST... 2008!!!*
>
> Care to share with the class?


Nah, I'm enjoying watching you and Ed tap dance from one end of the
stage to the other. P

There's pieces that I agree with on both sides. Except the farming. I
don't know nothing bout no farming. Never had an interest in a hoe.

--
"Yah know I hate it when forces gather in ma' fringe..." - Sheogorath

"Daytime television sucked 20 years ago,
and it still sucks today!" - Marc Bissonette

WindsorFox wrote:
> Michael Johnson wrote:
>> WindsorFox wrote:
>>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>>> We may as well just agree to disagree.
>>>>
>>>> C. E. White wrote:
>>>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> *WELCOME TOOOO... CODGER-FEST... 2008!!!*
>>
>> Care to share with the class?
>
>
> Nah, I'm enjoying watching you and Ed tap dance from one end of the
> stage to the other. P

I think we are really saying the same thing. We are differing on the
definition of significant impact.

> There's pieces that I agree with on both sides. Except the farming. I
> don't know nothing bout no farming. Never had an interest in a hoe.

If you're farming with a hoe then you are living in the Third World.

Michael Johnson wrote:
> WindsorFox wrote:
>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>> WindsorFox wrote:
>>>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>>>> We may as well just agree to disagree.
>>>>>
>>>>> C. E. White wrote:
>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>> *WELCOME TOOOO... CODGER-FEST... 2008!!!*
>>>
>>> Care to share with the class?
>>
>>
>> Nah, I'm enjoying watching you and Ed tap dance from one end of the
>> stage to the other. P
>
> I think we are really saying the same thing. We are differing on the
> definition of significant impact.
>
>> There's pieces that I agree with on both sides. Except the farming. I
>> don't know nothing bout no farming. Never had an interest in a hoe.
>
> If you're farming with a hoe then you are living in the Third World.

Careful, you may hurt her feelings....

--
"Yah know I hate it when forces gather in ma' fringe..." - Sheogorath

"Daytime television sucked 20 years ago,
and it still sucks today!" - Marc Bissonette

WindsorFox-{SS}- wrote:
> Michael Johnson wrote:
>> WindsorFox wrote:
>>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>>> WindsorFox wrote:
>>>>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>>>>> We may as well just agree to disagree.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> C. E. White wrote:
>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>> *WELCOME TOOOO... CODGER-FEST... 2008!!!*
>>>>
>>>> Care to share with the class?
>>>
>>>
>>> Nah, I'm enjoying watching you and Ed tap dance from one end of
>>> the stage to the other. P
>>
>> I think we are really saying the same thing. We are differing on the
>> definition of significant impact.
>>
>>> There's pieces that I agree with on both sides. Except the farming. I
>>> don't know nothing bout no farming. Never had an interest in a hoe.
>>
>> If you're farming with a hoe then you are living in the Third World.
>
> Careful, you may hurt her feelings....

Then that would be a Ho.